Or how about we don’t build fucking AI weapons?
No, we must build the Civilian Spine Shredder V1™ with a moral code so it can shred civilian spines morally.
Weapons and morals don’t exactly go together. Oposing sides.
How about we use a very old established moral system.
I propose you shall not kill.
Funny enough, that line can also be interpreted as “thou shalt not murder” which really changes the meaning. I prefer the standard translation though as a pacifist.
Is the man suggesting the glorified search engine has a consciousness?
It ain’t the killing machine that needs to have the morals, you twit.
Should? That not a reassuring word
This is an important conversation to have since I read the other day that the UK was supposedly taking humans out of the decision chain.
- A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Rule 0 tends to have… unanticipated side effects.
Like making us batteries or slaves. Yea… Can’t have an ai save us from ourselves
